Are we there yet? The SRVAW Indicators project Liz Kelly Roddick Chair in Violence Against Women London Metropolitan University

Moving towards indicators 1999 the first SRVAW noted the need to develop indicators to monitor state responses to VAW. The second rapporteur in her first report to the Commission Human Rights (CHR) in 2004, stated the need for indices on measuring VAW and state responses to it. Commission on Human Rights’ 2004 resolution on violence against women (2004/46). Paragraph 25 states: Bears in mind the need to develop, with full participation of all Member States, a international consensus on indicators and ways to measure violence against women and calls on the Special Rapporteur to recommend proposals for indicators on violence against women and on measures taken by, inter alia, Member States, to eliminate violence against women. Political support intensified, including GA Res 61/143 of 19 December 2006 (para. 18) which requests the UN Statistical Commission to propose, building on work of SR on VAW, possible indicators to assess scope, prevalence and incidence of VAW.

Indicator project   Proposal by SRVAW to develop two sets of indicators   Tasks   Review current research literature on measuring VAW and indicators on state responses   Consult with states, UN agencies, academics and NGOs   Produce a technical report and recommendations

Challenges   States and other parties not on board with the wider VAW agenda   Research and PoA’s often limited to DV/IPV   Limited understanding of technical and ethical issues   Limited progress at state level on disaggregation to produce gender statistics   Multiple approaches to research tools and definitions   Diverse approaches in national laws

Not quite there yet Technical report completed Some of UNECE seen a version SRVAW’s report to CHR still in process, will be presented in Nov 2007; the proposed suite of indicators will endeavour not to overburden states reflect the wider VAW agenda link to obligations under international law refer to what we know about measuring violence and promising practices.

Some analytic conclusions 1 Strong support from states   Meaningful - not lowest common denominator   Saw as a lever to increase importance of issue   UN agencies and academics more uncertain   More concerned than states about ‘burden’   Necessity of ensuring wider VAW agenda is attended to   Need to document trends over time   Neglect of attitudes, tolerance and prevention   Danger of too few/too many   Interest in layering to take account of differential resources and capacities of states

Some analytic conclusions 2   Measuring violence   Harmonisation unlikely   Some forms still a need for methodological development   Local legal definitions   Analytic strategies – creating comparable data   Unanticipated consequences   Moves towards gender equality can result in increased levels of violence   Potential for discovering differential rates across societies   State responses   Too little focus on   Untapped potentials   Likely to give useful results from HR perspective in short term

Defining terms: human rights indicators In addition to the technical and SMART criteria HR indicators must be anchored in human rights norms and standards, four key areas: u u Do states respect, protect and fulfill rights? u u Are the key principles met – non-discrimination, progress, participation and remedies? u u Is access assured through norms, institutions and law? u u Is the role and contribution of non-state actors in realizing rights recognized and supported? OCHHR categories of HR Indicators Structure : ratification/adoption of legal instruments and basic institutional mechanisms deemed necessary for realization of human rights Process : policy instruments, programmes and specific interventions; actions taken by the state and by individuals to protect and fulfill rights according the HR principles Outcome : the realization of rights. These are the slowest to move, often due to the interdependence of HRs – realization of one requires the realization of many others. Here measurements of incidence/prevalence of the targeted right (or violations of it) are critical

Basic measures on state responses: structure Ratification without reservation of key HR conventions HR architecture VAW and gender equality Plans of Action Qualified along various dimensions: coverage of all forms of VAW, time lines, implementation Legal framework Protection, challenging impunity, prevention

Basic measures on state responses: process Inter-ministerial policy group Budget lines Mainstreaming AND specialist responses Basic service standards Quality and diverse services Shelter places, helpline hours, advocacy/counselling projects per female population Equitable access – geography and excluded groups Specialisation Training – in service and in basic professional qualifications Recognition of women’s NGO sector Roll out of proven good practice

Promising directions: Attrition   The proportion of reported cases that fail to result in prosecution and conviction   Increased reporting as indicator of decreased tolerance and increased confidence in the justice system   Rates of investigation, prosecution and conviction indicators of extent to which systems have engaged with VAW

Attrition in rape cases: England and Wales

Attrition in rape cases: Germany

Attrition in rape cases: Hungary

Good and bad news   Unprecedented interest in developing indicators   Over focus on measuring violence   Uneven starting points   IPV/VAW   Continuum of interests   States, organisations, NGOs and academics   Difficult conundrums   Common definitions across ongoing debates and varied legal contexts   Not all forms need attention to frequency, severity or incidents   Do not have some official data currently – but not do we have funds for surveys   Need for a few useful measures into MDG/development programmes   Ongoing projects in dialogue and debate